remanded L-1B Case: Tire Mold Manufacturing

U.S. Citizenship 
and Immigration 
Services 
Non-Precedent Decision of the
Administrative Appeals Office 
Date: MAY 9, 2024 In Re: 31014077 
Appeal of California Service Center Decision 
Form 1-129, Petition for a Nonimmigrant Worker (L-lB Specialized Knowledge Worker) 
The Petitioner, which repairs, cleans, and modifies tire molds manufactured by its foreign affiliate, 
seeks to temporarily employ the Beneficiary as a tire mold technician under the L-lB nonimmigrant 
classification for intracompany transferees. See Immigration and Nationality Act (the Act) section 
10l(a)(15)(L), 8 U.S.C. § 110l(a)(l5)(L). The L-IB classification allows a corporation or other legal 
entity (including its affiliate or subsidiary) to transfer a qualifying foreign employee with "specialized 
knowledge" to work temporarily in the United States. 
The Director of the California Service Center denied the petition, concluding that the record did not 
establish that the Beneficiary: (1) has been employed abroad in a qualifying capacity; (2) is qualified 
for the position with the Petitioner; and (3) possesses specialized knowledge. The matter is now before 
us on appeal under 8 C.F.R. § 103.3. 
The Petitioner bears the burden of proof to demonstrate eligibility by a preponderance of the evidence. 
Matter ofChawathe, 25 I&N Dec. 369, 375-76 (AAO 2010). We review the questions in this matter 
de novo. Matter of Christo 's, Inc., 26 I&N Dec. 537, 537 n.2 (AAO 2015). Upon de novo review, 
we will withdraw the Director's decision and remand the matter for entry of a new decision consistent 
with the following analysis. 
I. LAW 
To establish eligibility for the L-lB nonimmigrant visa classification, the beneficiary must seek to 
enter the United States temporarily to continue rendering their services to the same employer or a 
subsidiary or affiliate thereof in a specialized knowledge capacity. Section 10l(a)(l5)(L) of the Act. 
The petitioner must also establish that the beneficiary's prior education, training, and employment 
qualify them to perform the intended services in the United States. 8 C.F.R. § 214.2(1)(3). 
II. FACTUAL BACKGROUND 
_________ 
The Petitioner and related foreign entities are collectively the "exclusive tire mold provider forl 
one of the largest tire manufacturers in the world," working with the 
manufacturer "in all aspects of tire mold development from R&D [research and development], 
engineering, and development of proprietary machinery and processes." 
The Beneficiary is a senior technician who has worked for the Petitioner's affiliate in China since June 
2016. He has been in the United States since April 2021 as a B-1 visitor for business. The Petitioner 
asserted: 
The Beneficiary has achieved one of the highest levels of expertise and knowledge in 
[the organization's] specific processes and procedures that are greatly intertwined and 
inseparable from 
In April 2021, [the Petitioner] invited the Beneficiary to visit its site inl IGeorgia, 
to assist with the operations of the Laser Mold Cleaning, Radial Drilling, and 
Sandblasting equipment from China. The Beneficiary has successfully overseen the 
operation of this equipment at [the Petitioner's] facilities inl IGeorgia, and has 
also provided technical consultations regarding the Tire Mold equipment to the local 
team inl IGeorgia. 
During this time . . . , the Beneficiary has developed new standardized process 
requirements and procedures for the Mold Modification and Repair Services team. 
[The Petitioner] plans to bring new equipment and machinery from its Chinese affiliate. 
The beneficiary's familiarity and expertise with this equipment will ensure 
successful installation [ and] the beneficiary can provide technical consultations 
regarding this equipment and machinery . 
. . . The Tire Mold Technologist position is critical for our training program to develop 
training materials, procedures and design activities for the training technicians to 
implement. 
The Petitioner stated that the Beneficiary's intended position has a "base annual salary" of $40,000, 
plus the Petitioner's "standard benefits package, including food and housing" worth "approximately 
$800 to $900" per month. 
III. ANALYSIS 
At issue in this proceeding is whether the Petitioner has established that the Beneficiary possesses 
specialized knowledge and whether he has been employed abroad and will be employed in the United 
States, in a specialized knowledge capacity. 1 
1 The Petitioner does not claim that the Beneficiary was employed abroad in an executive or managerial capacity. 
2 
As a threshold issue, we must determine whether the Petitioner established that the Beneficiary 
possesses specialized knowledge. If the evidence is insufficient to establish that he possesses 
specialized knowledge, then we cannot conclude that the Beneficiary's past and intended future 
employment involve specialized knowledge. 
A beneficiary is deemed to have specialized knowledge if they have: (1) a "special" knowledge of the 
petitioning organization's product and its application in international markets; or (2) an "advanced" 
level of knowledge of the processes and procedures of the petitioning organization. Section 
214(c)(2)(B) of the Act; 8 C.F.R. § 214.2(l)(l)(ii)(D). A petitioner may establish eligibility by 
submitting evidence that the beneficiary and the proffered position satisfy either prong of the statutory 
definition. 
As both "special" and "advanced" are relative terms, determining whether a given beneficiary's 
knowledge is "special" or "advanced" inherently requires a comparison of the beneficiary's 
knowledge against that of others. See generally 2 USCIS Policy Manual L.4(B), 
https://www.uscis.gov/policy-manual. With respect to either special or advanced knowledge, the 
petitioner ordinarily must demonstrate that the beneficiary's knowledge is not commonly held 
throughout the particular industry and cannot be easily imparted from one person to another. Id. The 
ultimate question is whether the petitioner has met its burden of demonstrating by a preponderance of 
the evidence that the beneficiary's knowledge or expertise is special or advanced, and that the 
beneficiary's position requires such knowledge. 
Special knowledge concerns knowledge of the petitioning organization's products or services and their 
application in international markets. To establish that a beneficiary has special knowledge, the 
petitioner may meet its burden through evidence that the beneficiary has knowledge that is distinct or 
uncommon in comparison to the knowledge of other similarly employed workers in the particular 
industry. Id. 
Because advanced knowledge concerns knowledge of an organization's processes and procedures, the 
petitioning entity may meet its burden through evidence that the beneficiary has knowledge of or an 
expertise in the organization's processes and procedures that is greatly developed or further along in 
progress, complexity, and understanding in comparison to other workers in the employer's operations. 
Such advanced knowledge must be supported by evidence setting that knowledge apart from the 
elementary or basic knowledge possessed by others. Id. 
Once a petitioner articulates the nature of the claimed specialized knowledge, it is the weight and type 
of evidence that establishes whether the beneficiary actually possesses specialized knowledge. We 
cannot make a factual determination regarding a given beneficiary's specialized knowledge if the 
petitioner does not, at a minimum, articulate with specificity the nature of its products and services or 
processes and procedures, the nature of the specific industry or field involved, and the nature of the 
beneficiary's knowledge. The petitioner should also describe how such knowledge is typically gained 
within the organization and explain how and when the individual beneficiary gained such knowledge. 
We will withdraw the Director's decision and remand the matter for further consideration of the 
following: 
3 
• The appeal includes new evidence, in the form of additional training records and a letter from 
I I which was not available for the Director's consideration, but which may be material 
to the petition. 
• The new letter from I I indicates "selected individuals are ... observed and assessed 
during a minimum 1.5-2 years of post-training experience before they are considered 
competent." The Beneficiary attained his current title of senior technician after one year at the 
Petitioner's overseas affiliate. Further information is needed to allow a meaningful comparison 
between the experience of senior technicians who "are considered competent" and the 
experience of those who are not. 
• The assertion that the Petitioner and its overseas affiliates have different techniques than other 
tire mold companies is not sufficient, by itself, to establish that knowledge of the Petitioner's 
techniques is inherently special in comparison to other companies' methods. 
• The Director does not appear to have sufficiently considered the Petitioner's claim that the 
Beneficiary "has developed new standardized process requirements and procedures." This 
activity could be highly relevant and requires more attention. 
• That being said, the Petitioner must provide more details, corroborated by documentation, 
about the nature of these new requirements and procedures. 
• When discussing the Beneficiary's knowledge, the Petitioner must specify how various aspects 
of that knowledge are either "special" or "advanced"; the terms are distinct rather than 
interchangeable. Assertions that apply to the tire mold industry as a whole cannot meet the 
Petitioner's burden of proof to demonstrate that the Beneficiary has either special or advanced 
knowledge. 
• Some of the Beneficiary's claimed specialized knowledge involves tools provided by third 
parties, not unique to the petitioning company, such as a particular brand oflaser used to clean 
tire molds, and the technique of tungsten inert gas welding. Because these technologies did 
not arise within the petitioning company, the burden is on the Petitioner to explain how the 
Beneficiary's knowledge of these tools and techniques amounts to specialized knowledge. 
IV. CONCLUSION 
We will withdraw the Director's decision and remand the matter so that the Director can consider 
newly submitted evidence and provide the Petitioner an opportunity to address the foregoing with 
respect to the nature of the Beneficiary's knowledge and his intended role at the petitioning entity. 
ORDER: The Director's decision is withdrawn. The matter is remanded for the entry of a new 
decision consistent with the foregoing analysis. 
4